lohphat:If "States' Rights" were really a GOP goal, they'd allow each state to decide on medical pot and marriage freedom...but they don't.

I lean Democrat the vast majority of the time, but the medical pot issue could have easily been solved (albeit temporarily) by Obama by simply telling the right authorities/agencies to not enforce the law in that specific instance. I blame him on this one.

Fart_Machine:States are already first responders. The whole point of FEMA is to provide them any aid if it reaches beyond what they can handle. The Romney campaign has a knack for using lots of words to say precisely nothing.

Usually. It seems in this case however, Romney saying he'll be "giving x safety net program to the states" just means he plans on gutting it or defunding it entirely on the federal level, then wiping his hands on his servant-laundered pants.

Take Medicaid for instance... he said the same thing about that, but states already handle their own state-specific programs while adhering to federal law and guidelines. "Giving it to the states" in this case just means to kill that 90% federal funding. Medicaid would then be dead in the water... under all of those shiny new battleships.

What his supporters don't seem to understand is that, instead of the government figuratively holding you at gunpoint for this money, the would-be recipients might step in with a more literal role if things get desperate enough for them. I can easily see large groups of displaced people take matters into their own hands if they are lacking basic necessities, funds to move/rebuild, and somewhere to go in the meantime.

Of course, all of this would have to get through the legislative branch first. The scary thing is, if there's a Republican majority in both the house and senate for whatever odd reason, there is no telling how much damage will be done.

So what your article states is that Romney left enough wiggle room to talk out of both sides of his face again. Well that's quite an endorsement.

At least it was honest, unlike Salon, who misstates the question John King asked Romney in order to fit the template of their argument here. in TFA Salon writes:

In a GOP primary debate in June of last year, moderator John King asked Romney if he would let states take on the responsibilities of FEMA, which was "about to run out of money." "Absolutely," Romney replied. "And every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better... We cannot - we cannot afford to do those things," he added.

When, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. You can see the actual video of the exchangeWhen, in actuality, King asked Romney if, in light of FEMA's serious budget problems, he would let states take on MORE of the responsibilities of FEMA.

That's a different question, and changes the meaning of the answer. " target="_blank">here.

Their response was, in their terms, being "charitable" to Romney. In most campaigns a candidate differentiates his positions from his opponent. In the case of Romney what he stands for shifts like the wind. Given that states are already first responders you will still need to shore up FEMA with funding if you want to make sure the states will be taken care of and that means Federal dollars.

Mitt was severely for dismantling FEMA before he was against dismantling FEMA. Obviously, the man can't be relied upon to do anything as president other than seeing to the care and feeding of the 1%. Have a nice off season GOP. Who will you spring on us in 2016?

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.

Why do federal dollars need to be doled out? It will never be enough and the states have an interest to show that it isn't enough so they will botch the management of their disasters to get more money from the federal government. If the American people want to help these special needs states, they can donate their own money to the cause. If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

The Romney campaign has the knack, not to say a lot of words that mean nothing, but to say a lot of words that mean "fark you, I've got mine" unlike the past republican administration that just cut to the chase and told you straight to your face. I'll give them credit where credit's due at least.

I like how conservatives' alternative to FEMA is empowering states and private entities to do what they're already doing, minus the national level structure FEMA provides.

Did I say "I like it?" Wait, I don't. It's fundamentally stupid and pointless. I also have yet to see among the gales of butthurt* among the right any drive to donate to the Red Cross, become trained in CPR or First Aid, or anything else in the form of a solution. Nope it's all, "durr 0bama!" as usual.

Ya'll know that old saying about not understanding history leads to repeating your failures; FEMA was developed at the request of the states to help them deal with the dilemma caused by the balanced budget constraints and the massive cost of disasters (plus continual failures to manage disasters at the state level) SO WHY WOULD WE GO BACK THIS?

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.

Yes, because when I think of "more efficient" I think of 50 easier-to-corrupt-bureaucracies-that-can-no-longer-share-the-costs-of- a-larger-organization-and-must-pay-for-duplicate-items.

To put it slightly less snarky:

Every year, we can expect 3-6 hurricanes to make landfall on the united states. We are never quite sure where exactly they will land, as they can hit anywhere along the eastern seaboard. Each year, FEMA prepares logistically for 3-6 hurricanes which could fall anywhere along the border. Now, suddenly FEMA can't do that, and each state must prepare individually. So we are either left with a situation where some states always prepare for 6 hurricanes, and then the supplies are wasted when they don't hit the state that year, or where some states decide that hurricanes almost never hit them, so why bother prepare for them at all, and are completely buttfarked when a hurricane does hit.

Organizations like FEMA are far more efficient at the federal level because there is no way to accurately predict the annual distribution of every single weather disaster down to the state level, thus necessitating each state individually prepare for everything, wasting an amazing amount of money, or each state hedges its bets and gets destroyed when it cannot cope.

monoski:Ya'll know that old saying about not understanding history leads to repeating your failures; FEMA was developed at the request of the states to help them deal with the dilemma caused by the balanced budget constraints and the massive cost of disasters (plus continual failures to manage disasters at the state level) SO WHY WOULD WE GO BACK THIS?

Mr. Right:Romney is in favor of getting rid of FEMA. But, since we are in a crisis, the disaster has hit, and we have trained the entire country to rely on the federal government for everything, he is supporting their efforts now. It would be like changing the rules after the game has begun.

I know the article in Salon referenced all the wonderful work and coordination that occurs when the federal government is in charge and they try to make you believe that only the federal government can perform that. If you have studied a little history, you may recall that the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 occurred prior to any federal relief programs, as did the Great Chicago Fire. In both instances, the devastation was incredible. In both instances, the relief came from private individuals, bank loans, private investment and even foreign countries. In neither case was there a FEMA. In both cases, rebuilding was fairly quick and robust.

Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA. You may recall that private companies (even the hated Wal-Mart) and relief agencies were quicker on the scene. You may recall that, even though there was advanced warning (notably lacking in San Francisco or Chicago) the city was unprepared because the mayor and governor had the option of ignoring warnings and advice and exercised that option. Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.

So you chose to ignore that in the entire history of FEMA it has always been helpful and efficient, and focus on the one gigantic failure it has experienced in its lifetime- a failure perpetrated by Republicans appointing their friends to these agencies instead of anyone actually qualified.

Congratulations. You just made a good case for why noone in their right minds should ever vote Republican.

/Republican motto is "Look at how Government fails", when in reality it should be "Look at how we made a formerly-operating Government fail intentionally so we can get away with looting its corpse".

physt:San Francisco earthquake of 1906... Great Chicago FireNeither one of those were national events. Nice try comparing apples to fruit nobody has ever heard off.

Both were more devastating than Katrina. New Orleans isn't national either.

physt:Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMAIf you studied a little history, you'll learn that the previously effective FEMA under Clinton was gutted and run by an unqualified Bush appointee. Way to deflect the blame from Republicans...

If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

physt:Your post would have been complete except for your missing call to cut taxes for the wealthy.

I didn't mention taxes at all. But, since you brought them up, how is it fair that middle class working folks keep paying taxes that end up in FEMA rebuilding the yacht basins for the rich bastards up and down the coast after hurricane season?

Noam Chimpsky:Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

Are you claiming that all places have the same potential risk for catastrophic events? The liberal mind is a magical thing.

Are you going to respond to what he said, or what you imagined he said?

/Come to the Midwest!//No hurricanes, but plenty of droughts, wildfires, floods, blizzards and tornadoes!///Oh and we're right in Yellowstone's path of destruction if it ever goes off////Plus we have fault lines too!

Mr. Right:physt: San Francisco earthquake of 1906... Great Chicago FireNeither one of those were national events. Nice try comparing apples to fruit nobody has ever heard off.

Both were more devastating than Katrina. New Orleans isn't national either.

physt: Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMAIf you studied a little history, you'll learn that the previously effective FEMA under Clinton was gutted and run by an unqualified Bush appointee. Way to deflect the blame from Republicans...

If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

physt: Your post would have been complete except for your missing call to cut taxes for the wealthy.

I didn't mention taxes at all. But, since you brought them up, how is it fair that middle class working folks keep paying taxes that end up in FEMA rebuilding the yacht basins for the rich bastards up and down the coast after hurricane season?

The reason Romney wanted to disband FEMA to begin with is because he was catering to the minority of extremists who kept saying Obama was going to put people in FEMA death camps or some stupid nonsense when Obamacare became implemented.

Seriously... do a google search for FEMA camps and the first hit is this piece of tin foil work: Link

And Romney was playing right into it...

The same thing goes for NPR, PBS, and PP...Right wing extermists call NPR a government funded liberal media establishment designed to brainwash people and spread the liberal agendaThey think PBS is the same as NPR but worse because they are trying to indoctrinate childrenand they are both aimed at sending women to PP to kill un-babies...

They believe once the AHCA becomes implemented then the president will force the sick and the old into FEMA internment camps waiting to face death panels...

And while Romney didn't outright say he believes in the same thing, he was obviously reaching out to the social extremists by saying he will cut government support of these socially liberal propaganda engines while trying to appeal to the moderate republicans by saying that funding them is an example of fiscal liberalism that should be culled...

It's really an ingenious plan... You come out at the bell appealing to the mouth frothing extremists in the country, real them in hook line and sinker, then when it gets closer to election, start flipping your agenda to appeal to the moderates, because the mouth frothers won't believe for a second that you aren't on their side, and the average american voter memory seems to be about the human equivalent of a goldfish so moderates will only remember what you said in the last couple of weeks or even the last days of the elections...

for the average 'murican, this tactic is perfect... So go have yourself a Bud light and flip on rastlin, or UFC, because at some point, Romney has said something to show you he has your back...

Noam Chimpsky:Are you claiming that all places have the same potential risk for catastrophic events?

No. Are you claiming that when you said "hurricane and earthquake zones" you weren't being demonstrative, but, rather, literal, and you're okay with people who live in the path of tornadoes, floods, fires, mudslides and volcanoes?

The conservative mind is... well.... nothing. Because I have yet to see evidence conservatives are actually capable of any kind of thought.

Headso:Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.

And that there is an "earthquake zone" in every state in the country, including most of the population centers in CA, the middle of VA (and because of how the East Coast's soil/mantle are, a minor EQ will ring all the way up and down the coast, affecting DC, most of MD - including where all the people live, NC, SC and up into NJ/NY)... And that there does not exist a house or place of business not at risk for flooding.

Hurricane-prone areas exist, sure - but almost anywhere you move will have that or other risks (notably, tornadoes and droughts).

Mr. Right: If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

From the Wikipedia article on FEMA:

President Bush appointed Michael D. Brown as FEMA's director in January 2003. Brown warned in September 2003 that FEMA's absorption into DHS would make a mockery of FEMA's new motto, "A Nation Prepared", and would "fundamentally sever FEMA from its core functions", "shatter agency morale" and "break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first responder stakeholders". The inevitable result of the reorganization of 2003, warned Brown, would be "an ineffective and uncoordinated response" to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.

Skeptos:Mr. Right: If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

From the Wikipedia article on FEMA:

President Bush appointed Michael D. Brown as FEMA's director in January 2003. Brown warned in September 2003 that FEMA's absorption into DHS would make a mockery of FEMA's new motto, "A Nation Prepared", and would "fundamentally sever FEMA from its core functions", "shatter agency morale" and "break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first responder stakeholders". The inevitable result of the reorganization of 2003, warned Brown, would be "an ineffective and uncoordinated response" to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.

Brown's opinion on anything is meaningless. He was a horse judge. The fact that he was appointed by Bush in the first is all you need to know.

Mr. Right:physt: San Francisco earthquake of 1906... Great Chicago FireNeither one of those were national events. Nice try comparing apples to fruit nobody has ever heard off.

Both were more devastating than Katrina. New Orleans isn't national either.

physt: Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMAIf you studied a little history, you'll learn that the previously effective FEMA under Clinton was gutted and run by an unqualified Bush appointee. Way to deflect the blame from Republicans...

If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

physt: Your post would have been complete except for your missing call to cut taxes for the wealthy.

I didn't mention taxes at all. But, since you brought them up, how is it fair that middle class working folks keep paying taxes that end up in FEMA rebuilding the yacht basins for the rich bastards up and down the coast after hurricane season?

I don't know anything about that but it doesn't sound fair. How about we fix it instead of scraping the whole thing and letting the private section prey on us?

Noam Chimpsky:Headso: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.

Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.

That's just one out of touch derpers opinion. IMO we should support people living in these areas when they are impacted by these storms so they can get back to contributing to the GPD of our nation and growing the foods we all eat.

*right hand is crushed in an accident*Right hand: Aggggh!!! Help!!!Left hand: dude, will you shut up already? And no, you can't have any of my blood, you had your own!Right hand: come on leftie, I'm gonna die if you don't help me! My death will cause trouble for the entire body and will result in suffering for all other body systems and organs, including you.Left hand: stop being a mooch and asking for a handout!*later, as leftie is rotting away from gangrene*Left hand: stupid right hand! I win!!!

*right hand is crushed in an accident*Right hand: Aggggh!!! Help!!!Left hand: dude, will you shut up already? And no, you can't have any of my blood, you had your own!Right hand: come on leftie, I'm gonna die if you don't help me! My death will cause trouble for the entire body and will result in suffering for all other body systems and organs, including you.Left hand: stop being a mooch and asking for a handout!*later, as leftie is rotting away from gangrene*Left hand: stupid right hand! I win!!!Left hand: stupid gangrenous right hand! This is all your fault! I was doing great until you got me all diseasy! You better help me out of this mess, you stubby sumbiatch!

Headso:Noam Chimpsky: Headso: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.

I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?

not to mention in these "hurricane zones" they have some of the most fertile soil in all of America.

Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.

That's just one out of touch derpers opinion. IMO we should support people living in these areas when they are impacted by these storms so they can get back to contributing to the GPD of our nation and growing the foods we all eat.

Looking at the label of all the fruits and veggies i eat, seems most of the food i eat comes from California...The fish comes from the pacific, so that conceivably comes from CA as well... I have no idea where my beef comes from...

Though i do eat a lot of shrimp... so... i guess we can keep Louisiana...